Free Statement of Material Facts - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

,r,r nl ,.,, . r.,r -Y.;.. .......Y_..,..............._-.j T .,,.,1..i.]..
5 Case 3:00-cv—OO812—RNC Document 90 Filed O9/21/2004 Page1 0f3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I
JANCIS FULLER CIVIL ACTION NUMBEB,=:;f 3:QQ,CV812(RNC)(DFM)
PLAINTIFF ; _~ 1 Sie?
.vS. F , i_:.=._
JOHN ARMSTRONG, ET AL. Ci 11
DEFENDANTS . SEPTEMBER 20, U
jFLAINTIFF'S RULE 56 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISP111']2§_i; ap 11**:*} 1
The plaintiff herein lists the material facts which are fntdispdty in the above- l
captioned matter, with reference to exhibits:
1. Plaintiff has been illegally confined in the custody of the Connecticut K
Deparqment of Correction at 201 West Main Street, Niantic, Connecticut, since ,
6-30-95 (p1aintiff's Exhibits: 1,2,3).
1 2. Od 11-7-98, the plaintiff placed a request form on which she had written a
request for a dental repair for one of her teeth, which had lost a cusp earlier
that day, in the prison's health services mailbox by the prison's cafeteria.
(p1a1dr1£I's Exhibit 4).
3. oa 11-17-98, the plaintiff placed a grievance, dated 11-17-98, in which she
A renewdd the request to the prison's dental services department for a prison dentist g
to redair her broken tooth, to which a copy of the 11-7-98 request for the dental
repaid was attached, in the health services mailbox by the prison's cafeteria
(plaidtiff's Exhibits: 5,4,7). .
1 4. od 12-2-98, defendant Henchy responded to the grievance, dated 11-17-98, which
had been received by the grievance coordinator on or about 11-18-98 and forwarded to
`
him, dy having plaintiff sent to the prison's dental services office, whereupon he
examined her teeth (plaintiff's Exhibits: 5,4,7).
5. Adter said examination, defendant Henchy told the plaintiff that the only
feasibhe restorative treatment for her broken tooth would be a dental crown.
1 (plaidtiff's Exhibit 7). ‘
6. Anter said examination, defendant Henchy told the plaintiff that the Department
of Corhection did not provide dental crowns to prisoners who needed them and that
she womld not be allowed to visit a private dentist's office in the community to
obtaim one (Plaintiff's Exhibit 7).
7. Afwer said examination, defendant Henchy applied a cement filling to the
plaintdff's broken tooth (plaintiff's Exhibits: 6,7).
1 8. Abput Seven hours after said examination, the cement filling fell out of the
1
I 1

1 I
2. = éCase 3:00-cv—OO812—RNC Document 90 Filed O9/21/2004 Page20f3 2
I
plaintiff's broken tooth and she inadvertently swallowed it (plaintiff's Exhibits: 6,7).
9. After defendant Benard examined the plaintiff's teeth at the prison's dental
servites office on 3-26-99, he told plaintiff that the only feasible for her broken
1 toothQwould be a dental crown.
10. After said examination, Dr. Benard told plaintiff that the Department of
Correftion did not provide dental crowns to prisoners who needed them and that
she wpuld not be allowed to visit a private dentist's office in the community to
obtain one (plaintiff's Exhibit 7)
2 11. After said examination, Dr. Benard offered to extract the broken maxillary molar
2 from the plaintiff's mouth and she refused the offer (plaintiff's Exhibit 7).
i 12. ln December, 1998, Richard Rocco called defendant Higgins's office at the prison
1 and asked the warden via her secretary if the plaintiff could have permission to i
visitéthe office of a private dentist in New London County to obtain a dental crown
(p1aihtiff's Exhibit 8). }
13. about a week later, I called defendant Higgins's office again and was informed
by defendant Higgin's secretary that Warden Higgins did not allow prisoners to visit y
the offices of dentists in private practice to obtain dental crowns (plaintiff's
Exhibit 8).
14. flaintiff has suffered pain her in jaw after talking for more than few minutes
at a time, discomfort from abrasion caused to the left side of her tongue from Q
rubbi g against the jagged edge of her broken tooth, and choking incidents caused
from eing unable to chew certain types of food into pieces small enough to swallow,
ever ince one of her maxillary molar teeth lost a cusp on 11-7-98 (plaintiff's
Exhib!ts: 7,12).
15. Lhe defendants have never offered the plaintiff an opportunity to have a dental
experi restore her broken maxillary molar with an amalagam filling (plaintiff's 1
i Exhibit 7).
f THE PLAINTIFF
Q )@LfLCA.¢; q;{l¤;Q;0b€uZL~... I
Q ancis L. Fuller, pro se !
2 201 West Main Street
Q 0-North, F—8
2 Niantic, CT 06357
` I
i 1
8 E i
w a I
if..i._.1_._.........,m___.___.__._.i____._;__*_,“_._._.,.t ssos y . 1

1 1
c 1Case 3:00-cv-00812-RNC Document 90 Filed O9/21/2004 Page 3 of 3 1
1 CERTIFICATION 1
1
his is to certify that a copy of the foregoing statement was mailed/delivered 1
this Si/day of September, 2004, to opposing counsel as follows:
_ deline Melchlonne
Qssistant Attorney General
l0 Sherman Street _
artford, CT 06l05
1 { THE PLAINTIFF 1
1 1
L JF 1
1 ` ncis L. Fuller, pro se
Q 201 West Main Street
1 i 0-North, F—8
_ Z Niantic, CT 06357 J
1
1
1
1
1 1
i 1
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
Q 1
1 1
1 1 1
11111 1_m,_1,_f,_,1111 oooy 1